Hightower v. Walgreen Eastern Co., No. 553554 (May 20, 2002)

Connecticut Superior Court

Hightower v. Walgreen Eastern Co., No. 553554 (May 20, 2002)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 6490

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 20, 2002

DocketNo. 553554

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 6490 (Hightower v. Walgreen Eastern Co., No. 553554 (May 20, 2002)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hightower v. Walgreen Eastern Co., No. 553554 (May 20, 2002), 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 6490 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The defendant has moved for summary judgment alleging that there are no issues of material facts and that the defendant is entitled to judgment on the first and third counts of the substitute complaint.

The main issue in the case is that of foreseeability. The plaintiff claims that Walgreens knew or should have known of a long history of criminal activity on its property or in its vicinity. As a result she claims it had a duty to use precaution to protect customers using the drive-up pharmacy window.

Walgreens argues that the reports of criminal activity on the property would be hearsay and would not be admissible at trial. The court disagrees with such a blanket statement and finds that evidence of the CT Page 6491 prior activity would be admissible. The case of Stewart v. FederatedDept. Stores Inc., 234 Conn. 597, 610, 662 A.2d 753 (1995) clearly supports the plaintiffs position. The court finds that there was overwhelming evidence of prior criminal activity in the area that was known or should have been known to Walgreens.

The court, therefore, finds that there are many genuine issues of material facts in this case.

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied.

_______________________________________ D. Michael Hurley, Judge Trial Referee

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The defendant has moved for summary judgment alleging that there are no issues of material facts and that the defendant is entitled to judgment on the first and third counts of the substitute complaint.

The main issue in the case is that of foreseeability. The plaintiff claims that Walgreens knew or should have known of a long history of criminal activity on its property or in its vicinity. As a result she claims it had a duty to use precaution to protect customers using the drive-up pharmacy window.

Walgreens argues that the reports of criminal activity on the property would be hearsay and would not be admissible at trial. The court disagrees with such a blanket statement and finds that evidence of the CT Page 6491 prior activity would be admissible. The case of Stewart v. FederatedDept. Stores Inc., 234 Conn. 597, 610, 662 A.2d 753 (1995) clearly supports the plaintiffs position. The court finds that there was overwhelming evidence of prior criminal activity in the area that was known or should have been known to Walgreens.

The court, therefore, finds that there are many genuine issues of material facts in this case.

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied.

_______________________________________ D. Michael Hurley, Judge Trial Referee

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 6490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hightower-v-walgreen-eastern-co-no-553554-may-20-2002-connsuperct-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack